Speaking to Washington Independent reporter David Weigel today at CPAC, Hannah Giles, who posed as a prostitute in James O'Keefe and Andrew Breitbart's infamous, highly-doctored, heavily-overdubbed, secretly-taped, ACORN hit videos, confirms what we've been reporting for several weeks here: O'Keefe never dressed as a pimp in the offices of ACORN.

I asked Giles about a criticism that’s often been leveled against them — that they hyped up the video by wearing outrageous clothes in promotional materials and the videos’ introductions that they didn’t wear in the actual stings.

“We never claimed that he went in with a pimp costume,” said Giles. “That was b-roll. It was purely b-roll. He was a pimp, I was a prostitute, and we were walking in front of government buildings to show how the government was whoring out the American people.”

"B-roll" refers to footage shot separately and later inserted during editing, as frequently seen in movies and television. E.g., an overhead helicopter shot of Las Vegas, used to establish where the scene takes place, before cutting to the interior of a casino where the main character is seen playing cards at a table.

Breitbart's out-and-out lies in his own 9/21/09 column to help promote the videos by claiming they show O'Keefe and Giles "going to the Baltimore offices of ACORN ... dressed as a pimp and a prostitute and asking for - and getting - help for various illegal activities";

Greg Brock, the New York Times Senior Editor for Standards, as we documented exclusively some weeks ago, is even on email record as citing that Fox "News" appearance by O'Keefe (embedded again at right) as his only evidence to "stand by our reporting" in which the "paper of record" has, time and again, misreprested O'Keefe as having "visited Acorn offices ... dressed so outlandishly that he might have been playing in a risque high school play."

Just two days after the Times described the "outlandish" dress of O'Keefe, the Congress of the United States passed legislation to remove federal funding for ACORN. (A federal judge later found the legislation to be "unconstitutional".)...

The Times has so far refused to retract, apologize, and investigate how and why it got the story so incredibly wrong, time and again, even though many have written to the paper's Public Editor, Clark Hoyt (Public@NYTimes.com) to request that he recommend exactly that. Hoyt had previously chided the paper in his column, for being "slow off the mark" in having waited "nearly a week after the first video was posted" before covering the videos. A special editor was then assigned to devote attention to "issues that are dominating Fox News and talk radio."

Yet more than six months after the Times' first inaccurate report and dozens which followed, and even Congressional action following their coverage, the "paper of record" still refuses to issue retractions or explanations.

We have now heard from Hoyt, concerning his remarkable justifications for not recommending such actions, and will report on those reasons in full in the coming days after he has had another chance to respond to the additional evidence we've supplied him showing, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the New York Times was flat out wrong.

that, in truth, O'Keefe represented himself to low-level ACORN workers as the college law school boyfriend of Giles, desperately trying to save her from the house of an abusive pimp who she believed would kill her (a point only made clear when examining the posted text transcripts, as opposed to the misleadingly edited videos --- as O'Keefe and Breitbart still refuse to release the unedited videos);

that O'Keefe was recently arrested and charged with falsely identifying himself in order to commit a federal felony in the offices of a Democratic U.S. Senator;

and that the Times noted only the CRS report in a small item buried on Page 15, and never told readers about the former AG's report which found, among other things, that "Although Mr. O'Keefe appeared in all videos dressed as a pimp, in fact, when he appeared at each and every office, he was dressed like a college student - in slacks and a button down shirt"

...it remains all the more remarkable that the Times is still standing by the entirely phony story.

And if Breitbart and O'Keefe were that willing to lie about last year's "successful" scam, and the media were so gullible as to report it without fact checking any of it, what will they be willing to say and do now that Breitbart's employee O'Keefe is facing the possibility of ten years in jail? Without examining how they screwed up in giving uncritical coverage to the "successful" scam, safe money is on the same media outlets screwing up yet again in reporting O'Keefe's latest legal troubles and the rightwing political agenda media scams he has set for the future.

As promised, more to come in the days ahead, including Hoyt's responses to date...

UPDATE: For the record, as detailed on Wednesday here, these are just some of the many other mainstream media outlets, in addition to the NYTimes (and Fox "News"), which are quoted on the record as similarly misreporting the fake O'Keefe/Breitbart ACORN 'pimp' story: Baltimore Sun, CNN, New York Post, Washington City Paper, Philadelphia Daily News, NPR, Dallas Morning News.

Like the Times, those outlets also still owe their readers retractions and apologies. Please feel free to let them know!

Yes, that's exactly what she's saying Soul Rebel. I'll try to clarify that for the non-Hollywood types out there. (It's typically footage shot separately and inserted later. Eg. Wide overhead shot of Las Vegas before cutting to interior of Casino where dead body has been found in CSI)

It's breathtaking that the NY Times is sitting on their hands about correcting a monumental foolish error like this. They did cop to their role in the propaganda build-up to the Iraq war, did they not?

It's breathtaking that the NY Times is sitting on their hands about correcting a monumental foolish error like this. ... Any guesses on why the delay?

Will share all soon, including my correspondences back and forth with Hoyt. Hoping he'll still end up doing the right thing, so don't want him to feel sandbagged by my posting his responses publicly yet. But we'll see...

As noted, he can be reached at Public@NYTimes if you'd like to politely ask him yourself however.

The more I think on it, the more hysterical it is that our mainstream media cannot even figure out when they have been had. Nor can they own up to it when it is pointed out in triplicate.

What a farce. New York Times, are you kidding me, supposedly the gold standard in journalism, and they don't know that a kid in a costume from Party City is making a camcorder movie for his lifelong dream of being a comedy writer for Candid Camera?? Greg Brock, you are a supreme douchebag for even thinking for a second that you could maneuver your sorry ass out of this one.

BTW, anyone found that liberal media yet?? Apparently the NYT just took themselves out of the running.

Please, tell me that some asshole somewhere is gonna lose their fucking job over this. Just one person, somewhere, is going down. Please.

Let's see. The NY Times bought the transparent Iraq WMD lie. Given the importance of getting that story right why would anyone expect them to be any more diligent with respect to this less significant story.

Our country is in a very sad state. The best paper in the country is being taken over by right-wing propagandist.

I NEVER PAID MUCH ATTENTION TO THIS STORY BECAUSE IT LOOKED ON ITS FACE TO BE A BUNCH OF CRAP, AFTER ALL, WHO WOULD BELIEVE THAT STEREOTYPICAL HALLOWEEN COSTUME HE WAS WEARING, BUT AFTER I SAW THE FOX NEWS INTERVIEW, KNOWING THE TRUTH, IT'S EASY TO SEE WHAT A LYING, FABRICATING, PIECE OF SH*IT THIS GUY IS. HE HAS TO GO TO PRISON; THEN I HOPE HE'S PIMPED OUT TO ALL THE BLACK INMATES FOR HIS ENTIRE STAY. AFTER ALL, HE SAID IN THE INTERVIEW THAT HE TURNED TRICKS. I'D LIKE TO SEE HIS MOUTH WHERE HE SAID HIS MOUTH WAS.

Remember Bush kept saying "Sadaam" and "9/11" over and over and over again in the same sentences and then said: "I never said Sadaam did 9/11"???

It's a tactic. It's really a lie, and lie in which they could honestly say: "We never specifically said that".

Yeah, you edit videos to make it "appear" you had the pimp costume on in the ACORN offices, THEN you show up on every TV show and dress for every picture in the pimp costume and NEVER show yourself actually in the office dressed conservatively.

THAT, my friends, is STILL LYING!!!

While it IS a true statement saying “We never claimed that he went in with a pimp costume”, it's BULLSHIT that it wasn't a LIE!

The LIE was them purposely misleading everyone by edited videos and pictures and TV appearances ONLY dressed as the pimp...to KNOWINGLY TRY AND MAKE EVERYONE BELIEVE IT.

THAT is still LYING!

It's a BULLSHIT LIE to say "We never said that", knowing full well they purposely deceived everyone.

Acorn isn't corrupt? I saw the footage. The workers are telling them ways they can avoid paying taxes. They tell Giles and O'Keefe ways to make the incoming underage prostitutes "dependents."
What was left out that would put this in context?
Why does it matter what O'Keefe or Giles was wearing? Did Brietbart saying after the event was recorded that O'Keefe was dressed as a pimp alter the video that was already shot?
Very weird line of reasoning you're going down.

Acorn isn't corrupt? I saw the footage. The workers are telling them ways they can avoid paying taxes.

FAIL. You didn't see the footage, because O'Keefe/Breitbart refuse to release the footage for some reason. You saw the highly-doctored, heavily-overdubbed, purposely-misleading edited version of the tapes. You should have read the released transcripts which clearly show *no* ACORN workers advising either of them "ways they can avoid paying taxes". In every instance, the employees advised them they MUST pay taxes, even on ill-gotten gains. Which is absolutely correct

Feel free to demonstrate otherwise.

They tell Giles and O'Keefe ways to make the incoming underage prostitutes "dependents."

Yup. Since they had told the workers, that they were rescuing the girls from an abusive pimp who had stalked Giles, physically abused and threatened to kill her. That point, made in every office, didn't make it's way into the edited videos for some odd reason.

What was left out that would put this in context?

See above. And the transcripts.

Why does it matter what O'Keefe or Giles was wearing?

For two reasons: 1. Because the hook was 'look how stupid these dumb ACORN workers are, they couldn't even recognize that this guy was a fake and yet they receive federal ta dollars?' - and yet he was dressed as a conservative college law student in every office and represented himself as such to the workers, telling them he was trying to rescue his girlfriend and these young girls from the abusive pimp. 2. Because O'Keefe and Breitbart were willing to lie about their most spectacular marquee claim to get attention to the story. If they were willing to lie about that, what else did they also lie about and misrepresent and why won't they release the unedited footage and what else are they hoping to hide in the bargain? And, oh yeah, would you have accepted a story from, say, Dan Rather if it became clear he knowingly lied about and misrepresented the headline claim of his story?

Did Brietbart saying after the event was recorded that O'Keefe was dressed as a pimp alter the video that was already shot?

Don't know which videos were altered when, so can't tell you. Editing happened likely until the hour they were finally released. Why don't you ask Andy to release the footage so we can find out?

Very weird line of reasoning you're going down.

Only if you believe that journalist should tell the truth and stuff. Or if you've been so brainwashed by years of phony GOP anti-ACORN propaganda that you'd rather not learn how you've been played for a fool for so long by Breitbart and friends.

R.U. Kidding, you're imagining things you saw in the videos, or are just lying about them. No one suggested she make house guests dependents on her taxes.

The ACORN workers didn't do anything illegal. That's a fact. No prosecution, no trial, no conviction.

The worst was the suggestion that Giles refer to her profession as entertainer or something like that so she could PAY her legal taxes on her income, not evade them.

Giles and O'Keefe threw out little bits of bait implying things that could have flagged a prostitution enterprise, but they never on any video identified they wanted help to pretend cover up something pretend illegal.

Brad - Take some time and watch the videos. Your comment #21 makes it abundantly clear that you haven't. You're just ripping off material from Media Matters and ACORN without doing any of your own. Pure hackery, Brad.

You're still cherry picking the media stories which meet the meme Media Matters constructed after the fact and ignoring the ones that don't. Most sentient people could tell that the intro and final portions of the videos with O'Keefe in the pimp costume were edited on for effect. This is really a lame smear attempt, including the twisting of Breitbart's 9/21 words. I know you can't do better, so it's not your fault.

#23: I just watched the videos...again...and there's cuts all over them between when he talks and ACORN responds. ACORN's responses may not even be for the questions he asks. That's what I take from the videos. He spliced them to make it look in parts like ACORN is responding to something he just said, but there's an obvious cut in it. Colbert does that to be funny.

Yes, I urge everyone to look at the videos again, and look for the plethora of cuts and splices. Good idea. It looks WORSE when you're actually looking for the cuts.

I was actually thinking it may be WORSE than we thought: O'Keefe may have spliced answers from different questions to make it look even worse! IE: it isn't even in chronological order. What makes us think the flow of his video is even in chronological order? And what's left out?

Example: He asks ACORN if he could have a form for a prostitute. ACORN answers there is no form or are you nuts? Later on ACORN answers "yes, here's the form" to a completely different question, and O'Keefe splices that answer to the first question. I bet that's why ACORN was exonerated. Someone saw the original unedited tapes. And I bet O'Keefe and Breitbart would rather DIE than have the original unedited tapes released for all to see how they spliced it.

So let me ask you, R.U. Kiddin #20 & Daleyrocks #23, when you went to see Forrest Gump did you really believe that President Johnson told Tom Hanks, "Damn son!" when Hanks pulled down his pants to show him where he got shot?

"The unedited videos have never been made public. The videos that have been released appear to have been edited, in some cases substantially, including the insertion of a substitute voiceover for significant portions of Mr. O’Keefe’s and Ms.Giles’s comments, which makes it difficult to determine the questions to which ACORN employees are responding. A comparison of the publicly available transcripts to the released videos confirms that large portions of the original video have been omitted from the released versions. To date, the videographers have declined or ignored our interview request."

If you only watched these doctored videos, you could not know something else Harshbarger reported: "Three of the six videos --- Brooklyn, Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. --- involved only ACORN Housing employees, over which ACORN has no control." ACORN Housing is "a separately incorporated organization (not a subsidiary or affiliate) with which ACORN contracts for homebuyer and foreclosure programs."

The inability of so many to see the holes in this entire sting boggles the mind.

Suppose you did your banking at Bank of America. When you went to make a deposit at your bank, you handed cash and a deposit slip to the teller, who pretended to make the deposit, but pocketed your money. If the bank, upon discovery of the embezzlement, fired the teller, turned the teller over to the authorities and restored your money, would the Bank of America be guilty of a crime?

ACORN consists of some "400,000 member families organized into more than 1,200 neighborhood chapters in about 75 cities across the country." Harshbarger reports that O'Keefe and Giles conducted their subterfuge at only 3 ACORN offices; that there were "extenuating circumstances in two of them;" that the "ACORN employees captured on video were members or part-time staff. They were not organizers or supervisory level employees;" that ACORN promptly dismissed those part-time employees. How is that any different from the bank scenario?

Moreover, where R.U. Kiddin #20 suggests that ACORN employees "tell Giles and O'Keefe ways to make the incoming underage prostitutes 'dependents,'" Harshbarger reveals that Giles and O'Keefe had told ACORN employees they needed a house to help rescue 13 year old girls from Giles's pimp!

Harshbarger concluded that the "released videos offer no evidence of a pattern of illegal conduct by ACORN employees" and that there was "no evidence that any action, illegal or otherwise, was taken by ACORN employees on behalf of" O'Keefe and Giles.

There should indeed be prosecutions arising out of this "sting." Giles, O'Keefe and any who conspired with them (Breitbart?) to conduct this "sting" may have violated a provision of the California Penal Code which makes it unlawful to record a confidential communication without the other person's knowledge or consent. A communication is considered confidential if the other circumstances reasonably indicate that the other party to the conversation expected it to be a private conversation. Conviction would carry with it a $2,500 fine and up to one year in prison.

I have oftenn wondered ,just what type of cut and paste job would have been done had the Pimpostor and his co conspirators not been foiled in Mary Landrieu's office in New Orleans?Just a short jog from the Boggs building on Poydras down to Canal Street,where ACORN is located.

Afterall , ACORN was founded in New Orleans, and is currently the location of their national headquarters.

As a matter of record, Breitbart attended Tulane University in New Orleans-as did David Vitter,and in roughly the same time frame. Coincidentally enough, Vitter just last year praised O'Keefe's videos and called for a RICO investigation of ACORN , AFTER the Pimp videos were being disseminated to the media.

"I've seen the news reports and it's obvious this is a very serious matter. We're blessed with an extremely competent U.S. attorney's office in New Orleans, and I know they'll handle this as aggressively as they have other serious cases," Vitter said in a statement.

Well, is it any wonder WHY the US attorney recused himself from the current case involving the attempted espionage of Landrieu's office by the anti-ACORN nuts?

The woman on this videohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UOL9Jh61S8
is repeating back most of the questions being asked. O'Keefe does an amazing job of what police often coach people to do when they are wired. The technique holds up in the face of charges by people such as yourself, hypnotized disbelievers. She is CLEARLY giving them tax advice on the underage brothel that this guy is setting up with another prostitute. I mean, what is your major malfunction here? She repeats back statements that implicate her in aiding a felony. And even if you don't buy that, she, at the very least, is not telling these people to get the hell out of Baltimore. isn't that a kick in the ass to the people of Baltimore? Their tax dollars go to an organization that is advising a couple of creeps how to bring prostitution to their neighborhood.
Go ahead, try and explain it away, and while you are, thinking people are just shaking their heads at you in disbelief. You see people in this video "helping their community."
You're deranged.

Hoochie Ho Hannah and O'Thief are so slimy that EVEN THEIR CONSERVATIVE CLASSMATES backed out of projects with them because the dastardly duo flaunted re-dubbing their own voices with NEW scripts to libel their targets. O'Thief changed his comments to falsely make a Planned Parenthood rep eager to accept donations just to abort black fetuses. He never made such an outrageous pitch directly to the PP rep because he knows no PP rep would accept such an insulting donation. The ironic horror of O'Thief's "moral outrage" against PP is that he is the racist one outraged by UNaborted black fetuses who grow up to join ACORN and get out the black vote for a black moderate president! He also completely ignores PP saving millions of women from appalling and bankrupting childbirth complications whom he wouldn't want supported by taxes.

It is impossible for anybody with even a basic knowledge of how editing works to be fooled by these (clearly racist) videos. There is no excuse for the people at the New York Times, or any news outlet, to have been fooled by them for even a second.

Brad, thanks for the "preposterous explanation" link to the emptywheel site. Had not been familiar with it. Lots of good leads there on the teabuggers in NOLA. Howard Baker is involoved in their defense?! Some big wig RNC lawyer named Madigan?

Also great stuff in comments on The Leadership Institute. One Mr. Steve Stockman is claimed to have purchased O'Keefe's equipment according to an apparently disgruntled ex-employee Ben Wetmore.

Would be nice if the nyt saw the light and started to act like responsible journalists but I think history will show the NOLA bugging to have much more severe ramifications than the ACORN travesty. Four punks have been charged with crimes. They all have trails of handlers and financers leading very high up indeed. If we pull that thread hard enough, a lot of shit may well begin to unravel.

You would have done well, R.U. Kiddin #35, if you had actually bothered to read the Harshbarger report before you provided the link to the video of the Pimposter's sting operation in Baltimore, MD.

Had you done so, you would have realized how bad it looks for accused federal felon O'Keefe and friends.

Where, through voice overs and superimposed write overs, O'Keefe attempts to make innocuous statements into a record of advice on illegality, the Harshbarger report exposes that portion of the very video you provided to be a gigantic hoax.

"The videographers initially spoke with a part-time ACORN employee....in the Baltimore office as a receptionist...The videographers represented that they needed help and had been turned down elsewhere, and that Ms. Giles was a dancer and Mr. O’Keefe was a college student trying to help her."

You'd never know that from the O'Keefe voiceovers.

They see two more ACORN employees:

"The ACORN employee [#2] reportedly was concerned for Ms. Giles’ safety because she knows people in her community with similar issues. She enlisted the assistance of another part time employee who works in ACORN’s free tax clinic. The tax employee noted that she considered Ms. Giles to be her client, not Mr. O’Keefe, since Ms. Giles was the individual needing help. Ms. Giles represented that she was an exotic dancer. Mr. O’Keefe said she was a prostitute. The tax employee relied only upon the statements made by Ms. Giles. In addition, the tax employee noted that she did not intend to, nor did she, file any tax returns on Ms. Giles behalf."

Now, even if we are to assume that this part time tax employee believed she was giving advice to a prostitute--exceptionally bad tax advice either way, the video fails to reflect a critical Harshbarger finding:

"The office’s supervisor reported that that no supervisor was present at the time of the visit. He said no one reported the incident to him and that he first heard about it when the media called to alert him that a video would be aired shortly. Both employees involved were immediately terminated and are quite contrite and apologetic."

Which gets back to my earlier point, R.U. Kiddin, how is this situation any different from the hypothetical of a bank teller embezzling your deposit. If the bank learns of it, fires the teller, and restores your money, is the bank treated as a criminal organization?

And by the way. You evoke the name Harshbarger like it's suppose to stop me in my tracks. Hatshbarger is an asshat. He's another Nifong. His witch hunts during the great "child abuse era" of the 80's was an embarrassment of jurisprudence. "I see molested people." He is a prosecutor like I am a diamond cutter. We're both hacks.

Where is R.U. Kiddin's moral outrage over ADULTEROUS David Vitter's ADMITTED CRIMINAL use of several call girl services while on the House and Senate floor?? And what about the CIA and GOP's PROVEN sex trafficking of KIDS for political blackmail in the Franklin S&L and MK-Ultra scandals?? Obviously, R.U. Kiddin has no problem with these crimes when committed by RETHUGS!

Brad, quick question from a differrent angle on this. Are any in the House or Senate aware of the sham perpetrated on them(although i know the repubs don't care)? If this is how easily propanganda can be used to change legislation in congress, what the hell are we going to do when an explosive false flag incident occurs?
THAT is one of the reasons I really appreciate you taking on these propagandists. If you let them get on a B-roll, they'll never stop.

Comment #47 nails it: these people, and the Teabaggers, have no problem when it's the Republicans. And all these militia groups rise and Teabagger groups rise...the "anti-government" groups - they rise only when there's not a Republican president. They did when Clinton was in office, too. Look it up. Suddenly, "anti-government" groups pop up...only when there's not a Republican president.

It just so happens it's always a Democratic president, since we have only two parties. But if it was any other party than Republican, anti-govt groups would arise on the pretense that government is fascist, and claim they're just against fascist govt. They say NOTHING EVER when there's a Republican president.

They never railed on Bush. We rail on Obama. We rail on fascism, not a party. We rail on bad govt, not bad Democratic govt only.

When you ask them about Bush, they ignore it.

RU Kidding: did you think Bush was a great president? What do you think of the wars going on 9 years spending 2.5 BILLION a week. You want fiscal responsibility from govt but don't say a word about the biggest taxpayer expenditure, the #1 waste of money of all other combined: military spending. You and your ILK want govt to cut spending ONLY ON SOCIAL PROGRAMS, not on the military. The military budget ON THE BOOKS (not including off the books) was over a TRILLION dollars, more than everything else combined. THAT is where our govt is wasting the most money. People like you CANNOT BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY if you don't mention military spending when you talk about govt wasting money.

You can't be taken seriously, if you are still speaking for O'Keefe and Breitbart EVEN THOUGH THE ACORN CASE WAS THROWN OUT.

You are an IDIOT and there's no hope for you. Or you are a shill who is knowingly jerking us around, like FOX "news" does on the news front.

You have just attacked Harshberger's character for the purpose of discrediting his report.

Attacking the messenger's character for purposes of discrediting is a tactic used when the attacker has no other defense for their position.

You just discredited yourself.

The only corruption involving ACORN is the corruption of so called conservative's 30+ year long effort to weaken and dismantle this true grass roots organization and to further disenfranchise the people that ACORN serves, your fellow Americans, by the way.

This '07 link will provide an excellent history of "les affaires" Vitter, and a few other collateral issues for good measure.

Daily Kingfish:: The Vitter Affair: As It Stands NowJul 16, 2007 ... The DP informs us that "Senator David Vitter has scheduled a 5pm news .... I challenged Jim Letten to open a criminal investigation ...www.dailykingfish.com/diary/148/ - Cached - Similar

Hey shmucks.
The woman is repeating back the questions O'Keefe is asking and then answering. Your contention is that these moments are overdubbed?
And I suppose if you were sitting in the room and heard these things with your own ears it would have been witchery, or lizard people making the words change in mid-air.
ACORN is full of the "kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human beings I've ever known in my life." Rinse. Repeat.

The suit alleges that the Working Families Party used its in-house campaign management and services firm to provide discount services to a successful Democratic City Council candidate, thereby giving her an unfair advantage over her opponents. The discounted services could qualify as illegal in-kind contributions, running afoul of federal and state election laws.

The firm, Data and Field Services, was the subject of a three part investigative report by City Hall News, a local political newspaper. City Hall’s report revealed a highly intertwined and complex relationship between ACORN affiliated organizations, including the Working Families Party and Data and Field Services. The report revealed that among other potentially nefarious connections, the two organizations share employees, office space, and client lists. This close coordination between the political party, a non-profit group, and the for-profit management firm raises serious questions about the use of funds by both organizations and the candidates they support and endorse.

City Hall’s report formed the basis for the allegations brought in Mastro’s lawsuit. But the trial has uncovered more potential legal problems for the Working Families Party, problems that may be leading right up to ACORN Chief Lewis.

Clean as a whistle:
Committee investigators have identified hundreds of ACORN bank accounts, shell organizations incorporated under different sections of the internal revenue code, and even an ACORN controlled accounting firm (Citizens Consulting Inc.) that helps ACORN obscure the true use of charitable donations and taxpayer funds. Documents and testimony from ACORN whistleblowers reveal that ACORN activities – despite contentions that they are intended to help the poor – fulfill a more self-serving and political purpose for ACORN. ACORN is well aware of the legal problems its political activities create as its own attorneys have acknowledged and outlined the potential for criminal and civil violations in private documents for senior ACORN officials.

Muscle for the Money involves using non-profit corporations for electioneering activities and an SEIU strategy to threaten corporations and banks into brokering deals for ACORN’s financial benefit. SEIU and Project Vote used litigation to force demands from government officials. ACORN, through Project Vote, threatened State Secretary of State offices with lawsuits, thus forcing political compromises at the expense of taxpayers.

You're friggin hypnotized.
And for the record, Bush was a terrible president. Iraq is a debacle. TARP was a disaster. Attempts at Amenesty ridiculous.
Medicaid giveaway as a gift to Big Pharma was disgraceful. The list goes on and on.
What does that have to do with ACORN? A corrupt and illegal organization. (They are not bipartisan. If you begin to try and claim that you're all liars or morons.)

Normally I'll read completely through a different viewpoint. You never know where truth might be. But you talk a lot and don't respond much, for instance you've never answered Ernest Canning's questions. You're also abusive in your language. Not appreciated.

May not mean anything to you, but you're losing this particular Bradblog reader because you're not engaging in dialogue. You seem to only like the sound of your own rants. My rule is becoming if a commentor has been deconstructed reasonably and refuses to acknowledge or answer reasonable questions put to them, they are not worth my time. They are a closed loop. They lose credibility. I'm interested in dialogue with those offering other viewpoints. Not interested in encouraging haranguing.

I did answer Cannings question, Lasagna.
(is he canning lasagna?)
But not surprising. One can't expect more form a dunce who says he doesn't read through entire posts when confronted with one he gets a little funny feeling reading.

And is my language approaching anything near#6's? This is probably this site's sensitivity training counselor.
Morons, all.
ACORN is a top notch, tidy, clean as a whistle, bi-partisan organization, which I should be happy my tax dollars fund.

Now make sure you counter my assertion with OTHER corrupt organizations, that seems to be some of the mouth breathers on this site standard debating technique.

Can't stand the accusation that I was wrong about you not answering Ernest Canning's questions(nice Lasagna joke by the way) and that I might have wronged you, even if you do talk like a complete asshole. Also can't stand the notion, which is complete bullshit, that I wouldn't read something cuz I'm uncomfortable with it. So fuck you for that.

So I went back and read everything you wrote, then I went and read Canning again, then I went over your stuff again.

I think you and I have different meanings for the word "answer".

I will admit that all that other legal stuff you wrote about that is not part of this O'Keefe/Giles/Acorn stuff we've been discussing here, I have no idea about. No idea whether you're being misleading and weird and ignoring enormous parts of reality as you're doing with the matter we are discussing or whether you're right on. But I'll keep a look-out for that shit.(not that you'd ever believe that as I imagine you'll need to keep on scratching the itch created by that giant bug up your ass and continue belching out gratuitous venom.)

Sorry, forgot to answer your question about #6. That was just so random, weird, and ugly and seemed like it was just a shitbomb flyby so I felt no need to respond. If you think that kind of comment is typical here or reflects any kind of accepted norm, I'd be most curious to see evidence backing up such a preposterous thought.

“I must say, as someone who watched the videos, that your characterization of the way O’Keefe and Giles presented themselves to the Acorn employees — as opposed to what he wore — is not credible.”
mwa hahahaha.
Not only does Brad look like a douche, his sycophants look like douches cubed.

What they were wearing is irrelevant. What they said and what the ACORN representatives said is what is relevant. ACORN is condemned by what the ACORN employees said. It is a simple as that, the ACORN employees demonstrated a disregard for the law and a familiarity with methods of corruption. ACORN is thereby condemned as the corrupt organization that it is, regardless of what James and Hannah wore during the interviews.